I subscribe to several listservs that
have been overtaken in recent days with very detailed and important
conversations about Wikipedia. Although initially skeptical about Wikipedia (I
do value the authority of my books, despite the fact that I have almost never
worked in a library that has any on site!), my basic philosophy about research
is that we need to start from where kids are, and then demonstrate that their
own research strategies should naturally lead them to where we want them to be.
In following this path, I have discovered for myself just what an important
role Wikipedia plays in great, inquiry-rich research.
I start almost all my research
online. Although I may have created my own personal decimal system for my home
library at age 10, I don't really believe that we have a way of organizing
print resources that really, truly, deeply makes sense to the majority of
people, and I find that the Internet gives us great tools for defining our
research process. I use the Web to find out what I need to be reading about
(scope and content), define search terms and vocabulary, find the sources I
*should* be using, and then move on to high-quality online and offline sources.
Of the intermediate sources I use to
identify these guidelines--my "steppingstone resources"--Wikipedia is
critical. I can get the background on my topic (so I don't have to waste time
doing that in source after source, now I can focus and *inquire*), identify the
vocabulary that "reliable" sources will be using to talk about my
subject (thus making good-quality sources searchable--since I know what to
*look for,* and what it would be *called* by someone speaking intelligently
about it), construct a basic reading list, and even (and, I believe,
importantly) read for points of inquiry--that is, identify what it is about a
topic that interests me and think about what unique direction I would like my
research to take. Wikipedia can usually help meet all of these needs.
For example, I recently had a parent tell me that when her middle
school -aged daughter had to do a report about Benjamin Franklin. She would not
let the girl go online, but gave her ten books from the library. Otherwise, she
was afraid, her daughter would use the "same three websites as every other
kid." Books first is certainly a legitimate approach, and the one we grew
up with, for sure. But I believe that if we taught research
properly--especially Wikipedia--this "top three websites" problem
would cease to be an issue. For example, I consider myself to be a relatively
educated person. Yet, when I just look at the TOC of Benjamin Franklin's Wikipedia
site I get very excited by things I do not remember learning. He studied
oceanography? Meteorology (direction of wind vs. storm)? Chess? These are new
ideas to me. I think that ten students could look at this article, and pick ten
different directions in which to travel. Once I decide to learn more about why
Franklin ended up in the US Chess Hall of Fame, I am quickly led to really
unique and interesting resources (with clear pointers to some amazing primary
sources, many of which are easily available online). I dare say this is more
(1) engaging and (2) educational that reading through ten books selected by
their common attribute of being on the library shelf when the mother went to get
them.
Wikipedia is not a source that I beleive should be cited in a student paper, but I beleive it is an important steppingstone on the path to inquiry.
How do you feel about Wikipedia? I am always curious to hear what you, your teachers, your librarians, and other influencers in your life have to say about it!
Recent Comments